On Mon May 5 13:17:08 2025 +0000, Jinoh Kang wrote:
I'm not sure actually. Testbot and GitLab CI disagrees on what tests should fail. This is how GitLab CI fails now:
msg.c:17356:32.309 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 4: the msg 0x0014 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.309 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 5: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.309 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 6: the msg 0x0005 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.309 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 7: the winevent_hook 0x800e was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.309 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 8: the winevent_hook 0x800b was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.310 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 10: the msg 0x0400 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.310 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 11: in msg 0x0085 expecting wParam 0x1 got 0x5040082 msg.c:17356:32.310 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 11: the msg 0x0085 was expected in child msg.c:17356:32.310 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 12: the msg 0x0014 was expected in child msg.c:17356:32.310 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got msg 0x0047 instead msg.c:17356:32.310 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got msg 0x0005 instead msg.c:17356:32.311 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got winevent_hook 0x800e instead msg.c:17356:32.311 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got winevent_hook 0x800b instead msg.c:17356:32.311 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got msg 0x0400 instead msg.c:17356:32.311 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:17356:32.311 Test failed: LB_SETCOUNT: 13: the msg 0x0134 was expected, but got msg 0x0014 instead msg.c:8186:32.361 Test marked todo: WM_SETFOCUS on a ComboBox: 3: the msg 0x0111 was expected, but got ms
meanwhile testbot succeeds: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=158168 so maybe the test is a bit too strict and some messages in the sequence should be left omitted or something.
I don't see these failures locally, and gitlab CI doesn't seem to me like a reliable enough reference.